AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V. Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.
We agree with Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., on both the points taken before him, which were also taken before us. The order of Venkataramana
Rao, J., in Application No. 1935 of 1941 in O.P. No. 158 of 1938 did not purport to supersede the three decrees under which the appellant was
liable. It only gave leave to the Official Liquidators to accept in full discharge a sum of Rs. 2,500 payable in monthly instalments, and in default,
they were to be paid a sum of Rs. 2,500, with interest at six per cent from date of default. We do not agree with the appellant that the only remedy
which the respondent had was to execute this order as if it had superseded the decrees. The ruling in Mahiganj Loan Office Ltd. v. Biharee Lal
Chaki ILR (1937) 1 Cal. 781, has no application because in that case there was a scheme u/s 153 of the Indian Companies Act sanctioned by
Court and it was held the the scheme superseded the decree which became incapable of execution.
The execution application filed prior to the present application, viz, E.P. No. 42 of 1943 cannot be said to be an application not in accordance
with law. The ground on which it is contended that it was not in accordance with law is that instead of claiming a sum of Rs. 2,500 fixed in the
order of Venkataramana Rao, J., the entire amount due under the decree in O.S. No. 325 of 1936 in which the petition was filed was sought to be
recovered. It would then be a case where an amount in excess of what was rightly due was claimed. On this ground, it cannot be said that the
application was not in accordance with law. Vide Al. Sp. Pl. Subramanian Chettiar by his agent Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Muthusami Goundan and
Others, .
The decision of the Patna High Court in Durga Prasad Sahu v. Mst. Powdharo Kuer ILR (1930) Pat. 183, was relied on. In that case though
the surety was declared liable only to the extent of one-sixth of the decree which was for Rs. 7,000 nevertheless the decree-holder applied for
execution for the whole of the decree against the surety and the judgment-debtors. It was held in that case that the application being one for a relief
which could not be granted under law, was not an application ""in accordance with law "" so as to save limitation. This decision is in conflict with
several other decisions in which it has been held that where execution proceedings are taken to recover an amount due under a decree which had
been varied or modified, the execution petition filed to recover a higher amount payable under the original decree would nevertheless be an
application in accordance with law. These decisions are referred to in Al. Sp. Pl. Subramanian Chettiar by his agent Narayanan Chettiar Vs.
Muthusami Goundan and Others, . With respect we agree with these decisions and express our dissent from the ruling in Durga Prasad Sahu v.
Mst. Powdharo Kuer ILR (1930) Pat. 183.
This appeal is dismissed with costs.